'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee

[007]

'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee​

On the fast track: Judiciary panel to consider hate crimes bill Tuesday
Posted: May 10, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say, provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

WND first reported on what has become widely known as "The Pedophile Protection Act" last week, raising nationwide alarm that has already generated more than 250,000 individual letters of protest to members of the U.S. Senate.

On Friday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.

Already well over 2,500 people have utilized the procedures and more than 250,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

'Pedophile Protection Act' heads to Senate committee

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah... that's right...

The ideological left has officially established pedophiles as a protected class... this in a bill written up by Democrats; debated, where Democrats opted NOT TO EXCLUDE Pedophiles... will be voted up by a majority of Democrats and will be signed by a Democrat President.

Nothing new... except their decision to make their advocacy to promote of every species of sexual deviency to normalcy... official.

Which will be quite helpful in the future debates which focus on how the left is a cultural virus, destroying everything that comes into contact with it.

 

[007]

Yeah... that's right...

The ideological left has officially established pedophiles as a protected class... this in a bill written up by Democrats; debated, where Democrats opted NOT TO EXCLUDE Pedophiles... will be voted up by a majority of Democrats and will be signed by a Democrat President.

Nothing new... except their decision to make their advocacy to promote of every species of sexual deviency to normalcy... official.

Which will be quite helpful in the future debates which focus on how the left is a cultural virus, destroying everything that comes into contact with it.

Give it another twenty years PI, and the liberals will have made mention of Christian morals a crime, but on the other hand it will be legal for a seventy year old man to have sex with a ten year old boy, and daddy will be able to marry his 12 year old daughter. There doesn't seem to be an end to the slide down the immoral slope the liberals are on. NAMBLA has to be jumping with joy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee​

On the fast track: Judiciary panel to consider hate crimes bill Tuesday
Posted: May 10, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say, provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

WND first reported on what has become widely known as "The Pedophile Protection Act" last week, raising nationwide alarm that has already generated more than 250,000 individual letters of protest to members of the U.S. Senate.

On Friday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.

Already well over 2,500 people have utilized the procedures and more than 250,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

'Pedophile Protection Act' heads to Senate committee

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

So you keep on spewin' those talking points, and I'll keep making you look like an ass.

 

[KittenKoder]

As much as I hate legislation for any form of censorship, you really kill your argument against it when you spin it this much.

 

[Sky Dancer]

As much as I hate legislation for any form of censorship, you really kill your argument against it when you spin it this much.

Alternative spin:

In the guise of religious freedom, the profiteering Christian broadcasting empire counters this hate crimes legislation (Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act) because they don't want to have to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits.

They have big bucks at stake.

This has nothing to do with protecting pedophiles, but hey, it's not like we expect them to honor the commandment to not lie or bear false witness.

If you want to know what the bill actually says go here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

 

[KittenKoder]

As much as I hate legislation for any form of censorship, you really kill your argument against it when you spin it this much.

Alternative spin:

The Christian broadcasting empire is concerned about having to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits which might hurt profit.

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

 

[Sky Dancer]

As much as I hate legislation for any form of censorship, you really kill your argument against it when you spin it this much.

Alternative spin:

The Christian broadcasting empire is concerned about having to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits which might hurt profit.

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

Read the bill and see if you think it's censorship.

"When my son Matthew was murdered nearly nine years ago, my family had a decision to make.

We could mourn Matthew’s death privately - withdrawing into some semblance of seclusion, try to resume our "normal" lives, pretending that nothing had changed...or we could use this tragedy to talk about hate and help make Matthew’s murder a wake-up call throughout our country. We made our decision - a choice we consciously and proudly continue to support every day.

Our son died because of hate. He was killed simply because he was gay. For us, our choice was a no-brainer. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about Matthew - his spirit, his passion for people, or his smile. And since his death, we have witnessed more acts of hate, bigotry, and injustice against other lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender (LGBT) Americans. For Matthew and all of the other victims, our family has chosen to fight and to act - to speak out against hate, to "come-out" as allies, and to engage ourselves in the process of change.

Some days are harder than others, but I choose to act for the memory of my son. I choose to act for the memories of the thousands of victims of hate crimes. I choose to act for those that don’t have the strength or ability to act. I choose to act because we, as a nation, cannot afford not to.

I choose to act because I was, and still am, very proud of my son...of who he was and the struggles he had to overcome to become that man. I choose to act because I never want another LGBT American to go through the fear, the pain, the violence, or the loneliness that Matthew went through on that horrible night.

I choose to act because I never want another parent to go through what we went through - the grief, the giant hole in the heart, the bedside vigil, or the realization that holidays, family vacations, and the normal, dull routine of work, home, and life will never, ever be the same.

All of us - gay and straight alike - need to act. Hate affects each and every one of us. It knows no limits, follows no clear set of rules, and has infiltrated our society’s most basic institutions. For that reason, I am humbled that the United States House of Representatives has chosen to act, and to do so in Matt’s memory, and the United States Senate is poised to follow. They are now taking the first giant steps in making the Matthew Shepard Act the law of our land.

The legislation is simple: to protect people from being attacked, beaten, brutalized, and murdered because of who they are. It’s a necessary, measured response to the consequences of hate that took my son away from me and has taken far too many other Americans from those who loved them.

I challenge all of you to follow the example of the House by making the choice to act. Encourage your Senators to vote for the Matthew Shepard Act. Today. Tell your story about how hate has affected your family. Today. Come out as LGBT and allied. Today. Choose to erase hate. Today! We all have a responsibility to act. If we don’t - who will?"
http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Press_Media_Dennis_OPED_Fathers_Choice

 

[Nik]

As much as I hate legislation for any form of censorship, you really kill your argument against it when you spin it this much.

Alternative spin:

The Christian broadcasting empire is concerned about having to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits which might hurt profit.

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

This isn't a censorship law. Its merely means that crimes against people because of their sexual orientation received added punishment. And no, sexual orientation does not include pedophilia, despite Republican lies.

Before you couldn't assault gays. Now you still can't. But if you assault gays for being gay, you receive a stricter sentence.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Alternative spin:

The Christian broadcasting empire is concerned about having to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits which might hurt profit.

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

Read the bill and see if you think it's censorship.

"When my son Matthew was murdered nearly nine years ago, my family had a decision to make.

We could mourn Matthew’s death privately - withdrawing into some semblance of seclusion, try to resume our "normal" lives, pretending that nothing had changed...or we could use this tragedy to talk about hate and help make Matthew’s murder a wake-up call throughout our country. We made our decision - a choice we consciously and proudly continue to support every day.

Our son died because of hate. He was killed simply because he was gay. For us, our choice was a no-brainer. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about Matthew - his spirit, his passion for people, or his smile. And since his death, we have witnessed more acts of hate, bigotry, and injustice against other lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender (LGBT) Americans. For Matthew and all of the other victims, our family has chosen to fight and to act - to speak out against hate, .........

Shouldn't the people who killed Matthew have their lives and/or freedoms curtailed just for killing a human? What difference does his being gay or not make?

I thought killing each other was already a no-no....

Assuming those episodes of Perry Mason are historically accurate.

-Joe

 

[Nik]

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

Read the bill and see if you think it's censorship.

"When my son Matthew was murdered nearly nine years ago, my family had a decision to make.

We could mourn Matthew’s death privately - withdrawing into some semblance of seclusion, try to resume our "normal" lives, pretending that nothing had changed...or we could use this tragedy to talk about hate and help make Matthew’s murder a wake-up call throughout our country. We made our decision - a choice we consciously and proudly continue to support every day.

Our son died because of hate. He was killed simply because he was gay. For us, our choice was a no-brainer. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about Matthew - his spirit, his passion for people, or his smile. And since his death, we have witnessed more acts of hate, bigotry, and injustice against other lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender (LGBT) Americans. For Matthew and all of the other victims, our family has chosen to fight and to act - to speak out against hate, .........

Shouldn't the people who killed Matthew have their lives and/or freedoms curtailed just for killing a human? What difference does his being gay or not make?

I thought killing each other already was a no-no....

Assuming those episodes of Perry Mason are historically accurate.

-Joe

People get punished different amounts depending on the severity of the crime. Surely you know this.

 

[Sky Dancer]

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

Read the bill and see if you think it's censorship.

"When my son Matthew was murdered nearly nine years ago, my family had a decision to make.

We could mourn Matthew’s death privately - withdrawing into some semblance of seclusion, try to resume our "normal" lives, pretending that nothing had changed...or we could use this tragedy to talk about hate and help make Matthew’s murder a wake-up call throughout our country. We made our decision - a choice we consciously and proudly continue to support every day.

Our son died because of hate. He was killed simply because he was gay. For us, our choice was a no-brainer. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about Matthew - his spirit, his passion for people, or his smile. And since his death, we have witnessed more acts of hate, bigotry, and injustice against other lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender (LGBT) Americans. For Matthew and all of the other victims, our family has chosen to fight and to act - to speak out against hate, .........

Shouldn't the people who killed Matthew have their lives and/or freedoms curtailed just for killing a human? What difference does his being gay or not make?

I thought killing each other already was a no-no....

Assuming those episodes of Perry Mason are historically accurate.

-Joe

The men who killed Matthew Shephard were domestic terrorists, IMO. Their aim was not just to beat a stranger to death. They were sending a message to the entire gay community. Hate crimes affect the entire community targeted-- and that's why the penalty should be harsher.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Alternative spin:

The Christian broadcasting empire is concerned about having to tone down their gay bashing or face lawsuits which might hurt profit.

See? Now that spin would have been believable. This is why the Republicans lost the spin war last election, the left just makes their spins more believable.

But here's a novel idea, why not just focus on the truth and key points for a change, look at the realistic possibilities instead of reading more into it and spinning it. Censorship is wrong, and there are laws already in effect to protect people, period. Why do we really need to add more laws? Especially laws which can be used improperly. That's the real issue and a real possibility.

This isn't a censorship law. Its merely means that crimes against people because of their sexual orientation received added punishment. And no, sexual orientation does not include pedophilia, despite Republican lies.

Before you couldn't assault gays. Now you still can't. But if you assault gays for being gay, you receive a stricter sentence.

Put that way it makes a bit more sense... For murder, it really shouldn't matter if the victim is gay... same with assault...

Do we still need special laws protecting societies sub groups from crime?

Hopefully, one day (insert your sub-group here) won't need special protection from various assholes.

Hopefully one day, judgement will prevail over politics and "Thou Shall Not Kill" will be simply enough. One day...

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah... that's right...

The ideological left has officially established pedophiles as a protected class... this in a bill written up by Democrats; debated, where Democrats opted NOT TO EXCLUDE Pedophiles... will be voted up by a majority of Democrats and will be signed by a Democrat President.

Nothing new... except their decision to make their advocacy to promote of every species of sexual deviency to normalcy... official.

Which will be quite helpful in the future debates which focus on how the left is a cultural virus, destroying everything that comes into contact with it.

Give it another twenty years PI, and the liberals will have made mention of Christian morals a crime, but on the other hand it will be legal for a seventy year old man to have sex with a ten year old boy, and daddy will be able to marry his 12 year old daughter. There doesn't seem to be an end to the slide down the immoral slope the liberals are on. NAMBLA has to be jumping with joy.

Yessir... Secular morality is the worship of hedonism and the advancement of that by the advocacy of every debauchery which flitters through the mind of some rudderless adolescent...

It's a shame... but it's fully expected. One can't allow the children to run the school and for academic performance to increase.

 

[KittenKoder]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

 

[Sky Dancer]

See? Your spinning Pubs is just too far fetched and only makes fewer people listen.

Actually, it makes more people aware of the spinning in worldnet.com, which I think is helpful.

Republicans--get a clue.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Wow...WorldNetDaily...Follows FOX Noise's lead in propagating bullshit. US law already defines sexual orientation as applying ONLY to "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality", thereby EXCLUDING pedophiles who sexually abuse children.

First, US Law doesn't define anything of the kind... the argument is absurd on its face...

Homosexuality is a mental disorder; a psychosis which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts... Pedophilia is a mental disorder which results in a perversion of the natural sexual instincts...

The fact is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and there is NO exclusion for such in this law and such was debated, and such was rejected.

Thus the ideological left HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS within the citizenry... and when the history of either the fall of the US or the second US Civil War is written; it will be noted that this point in which we're presently living is one of the milestones of the decadence which lead directly to it.

And the idiots on the right think if they spout the same lies enough times people will believe them.

Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and completely legal. We are discussing the Matthew Shephard Act, which is hate crimes legislation.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm skeptical that a condition categorized as a mental illness in DSM-IV (though I'd be curious to see these other "-philias" defined as conventional sexual orientations anywhere), would be considered a valid "orientation" by any stretch of the word. But then again, the word "pedophile," as with the word "terrorist," is a valuable tool in any demagogue's arsenal, given its ability to cloud rational analysis through the exploitation of base and crudely wrought urges and emotions. It thus serves as a valuable means of eliminating political and ideological dissent.

 

[Nik]

Yeah... that's right...

The ideological left has officially established pedophiles as a protected class... this in a bill written up by Democrats; debated, where Democrats opted NOT TO EXCLUDE Pedophiles... will be voted up by a majority of Democrats and will be signed by a Democrat President.

Nothing new... except their decision to make their advocacy to promote of every species of sexual deviency to normalcy... official.

Which will be quite helpful in the future debates which focus on how the left is a cultural virus, destroying everything that comes into contact with it.

Give it another twenty years PI, and the liberals will have made mention of Christian morals a crime, but on the other hand it will be legal for a seventy year old man to have sex with a ten year old boy, and daddy will be able to marry his 12 year old daughter. There doesn't seem to be an end to the slide down the immoral slope the liberals are on. NAMBLA has to be jumping with joy.

No, don't worry. Before it all goes to hell the aliens will come and take you away to their private utopia where everything is happy and nice. There is a reason the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy.